The Los Angeles City Council on Aug. 1, 2025 approved multiple consent items, took a separate vote on item 14, continued item 1 for one week and identified several closed‑session items that include recommended legal settlements.

Why it matters: the votes clear routine business from the council’s agenda and place several legal cases on the closed‑session calendar with specific settlement recommendations; several community items (including item 9 as an amended budget motion) were also moved and recorded for action.

The council recorded the following formal outcomes on the public record during the meeting:

- Items 2 and 15–18: The council voted to approve these items; the secretary reported “12 affirmative” votes.

- Item 14: The item was opened for a separate vote and was recorded as 10 affirmative, 2 negative.

- Item 9: A motion by (recorded as) Gerald Blasky Harris Dawson to adopt the budget and finance report as amended (moved as a motion tied to 9A by Padilla Rodríguez) was put to a vote; the secretary recorded 11 affirmative votes when the list was closed.

- Item 1 (ordinance): The council continued item 1 to Aug. 8, 2025; the secretary announced the continuance on the record.

- Motions presented and referred: The transcript notes that motions on the floor were presented and referred to the appropriate committees (no additional detail given in the public record excerpt).

Closed‑session calendar and recommended settlements: The council clerk read items 20–38 as closed‑session matters concerning litigation and settlement recommendations. The transcript lists case captions and recommended settlement amounts as read into the record; the statements were presented as recommendations for consideration in closed session (the transcript does not record final approvals for those settlements in open session). Examples read into the record include the following (verbatim as spoken in the meeting):

• "In the case called NRS v. City of Los Angeles... recommendation to reject" (item 20; recommendation language recorded by the clerk).

• "Alejandro Valencia Méndez et al. v. City of Los Angeles... recommendation to expand up to $600,000" (item 21).

• "Dakotazar v. City of Los Angeles... recommendation to expand up to $110,000" (item 22).

• "Gilbert Penate v. City of Los Angeles... recommendation to expand up to $150,000" (item 27).

• "Jason Armendáriz v. City of Los Angeles... recommendation to expand up to $1,500,000" (item 34).

• "Rentaba v. City of Los Angeles... recommendation to expand up to $313,700,000 plus interest" (items in the 30s, as read in the record).

The clerk repeatedly prefaced those items as recommendations from the city attorney for closed‑session consideration; the public transcript reads the amounts and captions but does not show final vote results for the closed‑session actions.

What the record does not show: The session excerpt does not include roll‑call votes for the closed‑session settlement approvals on the public record, nor does it include any executed settlement agreements. The transcript also does not provide full motion language for each referred motion beyond the item numbers.

Next steps: Several items were referred or continued for later action; item 1 was continued to Aug. 8, 2025, and the closed‑session litigation items were set for consideration in closed session as read into the minutes.